MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4324319050 · doi:10.1017/9781009245746.003

Fads and Fallacies in Science, Medicine, and Psychology

2023· book-chapter· en· W4324319050 on OpenAlexaff
Joel Paris

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCausality (physics)Context (archaeology)Chronic painChronic fatigue syndromePsychologyMedical scienceEpistemologyPositive economicsMedicinePsychiatryPhilosophyEconomicsHistoryMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter defines fads and fallacies, and relates them to cognitive errors. It discusses broader problems with determining causality in science, and the reasons for the replication crisis in research. Examples of medical and surgical fads, namely chronic fatigue syndrome, chronic pain, and non-evidence-based surgical procedures, are examined. The chapter also discusses the role of the pharmaceutical industry in medical fallacies. It concludes by explaining how fads can be understood in the context of the challenges of chronicity in medicine.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.030
Scholarly communication0.0090.013
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicHealth and Medical Research Impacts→French-language works237,207→